The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Non-Reigning Houses > The Royal Family of Romania

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 01-24-2013, 05:13 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 66
I'm pleased to hear that he has supported some good causes. But he is not a prince.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 01-24-2013, 05:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomBert View Post
But he is not a prince.
Nor is he a member of the Roumanian Royal Family.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 01-25-2013, 04:26 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 66
Yes, can you imagine the expression on King Michael's face if his half-nephew turned up at Elisabeta Palace for a family gathering? Though, I must admit I do find Mrs Hohenzollern fascinating in a freakish sort of way (where did she get that baby from?) I know I would never let him through the gates, after some his horrible comments about King Michael.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 01-26-2013, 09:23 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,820
There is no Prince with such a name (Paul) in the Royal House of Romania.
The Members of the Royal Family are: HM the King, HM the Queen, HRH the Crown Princess, HRH Prince Radu, HRH Princess Elena, HRH Prince Nicolae, HRH Princess Irina, HRH Princess Sofia and HRH Princess Maria.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 02-14-2013, 09:13 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,820
Why a new book about the Romanian Royal Family and the German Hohenzollerns and the non-dinastyc descendants of Carol II? Which is the real purpose of this book?

Official Website of The Hohenzollern Case File
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 05-16-2013, 12:38 AM
USCtrojan's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Phoenix, United States
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory View Post
Zizi Lambrino's grandson, Paul, presents himself as "Prince of Romania" and has a very different point of view from his father (who died few years ago but never proclaimed himself as "Prince of Romania") and from his half-brother.The Romanian Royal Family does not recognize any titles for the descendants of Zizi Lambrino.

Strangely Paul obtained the identity card and the romanian passport where it is written "Paul of Romania".Obviously some romanian authorities are still quite against the Romanian Royal Family.

Now Paul has a child whose godfather is the romanian president Basescu:

Traian şi Maria Băsescu l-au botezat pe Carol Ferdinand de România - VEZI VIDEO | REALITATEA .NET

Carol Ferdinand de Romania, botezat! Traian Basescu i-a fost nas! VIDEO!

Here are some pictures from de christening:

Băsescu l-a adus la botez cu Dusterul pe finul său, fiul Prinţului Paul - GALERIE FOTO - Mediafax

The Romanian Royal Family and the romanian royalists simply ignored the "event".
Do these men call themselves "princes of Romania" because they are the only males close to the throne who are Hohenzollern? Being that HM has no sons, I am guessing they are assuming the head of the house is officially there's upon his passing?


I am guess also that these men do not realize nor do they respect HM decree that allowed women succession rights and gave Nicolae the title HRH, prince of Romania?


I do have a question regarding Elisabeta-Karina... Is she in line for the throne? I notice that she was not given the title HRH, Princess of Romania, and does not go by that or is addressed by such... Can someone explain why she was not included in the decree that gave Nicolae a title and succession rights?


Is she not a princess?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 05-16-2013, 01:27 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by USCtrojan View Post

Do these men call themselves "princes of Romania" because they are the only males close to the throne who are Hohenzollern? Being that HM has no sons, I am guessing they are assuming the head of the house is officially there's upon his passing?

I am guess also that these men do not realize nor do they respect HM decree that allowed women succession rights and gave Nicolae the title HRH, prince of Romania?

I do have a question regarding Elisabeta-Karina... Is she in line for the throne? I notice that she was not given the title HRH, Princess of Romania, and does not go by that or is addressed by such... Can someone explain why she was not included in the decree that gave Nicolae a title and succession rights?

Is she not a princess?
I believe the argument here isn't so much that they believe they're the heirs to Michael, but rather that they believe they're the rightful heirs to Carol II.

Carol had two sons, Carol Lambrino and Michael I. Carol Jr was born from Carol Sr's first marriage, which was later annulled, while Michael was born from Carol Sr's second marriage. As such, Carol Jr is older than Michael. However, his legitimacy wasn't established until 1955 (in Portugal and 1995 in Romania) - after Michael had already been established as king. Carol Jr never claimed to be the rightful heir of Carol Sr, but his son, Paul, has claimed as much.

Basically, Paul's claim is that because his father was born first, and legitimately as confirmed by the courts of Romania, and he himself is the eldest son of his father, then he is the head of the house and the rightful claimant to the throne. However, in a way Michael's claim is stronger - when Carol Sr abdicated in 1925 it was in favour of his younger son, Michael, establishing him as the heir. Then, when Carol Sr was overthrown in 1940 it was Michael who was put on the throne and crowned. Thus, Michael ruled (in as much as he ruled at all) by conquest, nullifying the actual order of succession. As such, Paul's claim to the Romanian throne becomes rather similar to Charles Stuart's claim to the British throne in the 18th century - yes, he has the better claim in terms of primogeniture, but the ruling party (in as much as there is one) does so by right of conquest, nullifying the better claim.

This is going to become even more of a problem when Michael dies, as he doesn't have a male heir and the Romanian throne requires a male heir. While he can say that he's changed the rules of succession to allow for inheritance by his daughter all he wants, it's not entirely supported legally (owing to the lack of a throne). He might have been better of naming his grandson as his heir, but even then there's still the issue of Paul and his legitimate, male-line descent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 05-16-2013, 01:33 AM
USCtrojan's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Phoenix, United States
Posts: 1,692
I guess the idea of a restoration will likely never happen at this point... This is for sure going to cause issues in the long run after the kings passing -statute or not. If only parliament would accept the statute and change -no one ever said that HM had to officially be head of state for them to do that.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 05-16-2013, 01:39 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by USCtrojan View Post

I guess the idea of a restoration will likely never happen at this point... This is for sure going to cause issues in the long run after the kings passing -statute or not. If only parliament would accept the statute and change -no one ever said that HM had to officially be head of state for them to do that.
I believe Michael is active in trying to have the monarchy restored, while Paul isn't (which makes Paul's claim rather defunct in terms of the actual monarchy; there's issues regarding other inheritances that I think are more pressing to him). It doesn't seem like there's a large amount of support for a restoration within Romania, making it rather moot who the head of house is.

Because Paul isn't clamouring for a restoration and Michael is universally recognized as king, it almost seems more likely that someone descended from Michael will be made monarch in the event of a future restoration (if Michael himself is no longer alive). I think as Michael's eldest daughter doesn't have any children, but his second daughter does have a son then the whatever future of the Romanian monarchy there is lies in there.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 05-16-2013, 12:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,820
The descendants of Zizi Lambrino are not members of the Royal Family and the have never received any titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 05-16-2013, 12:38 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Basically, Paul's claim is that because his father was born first, and legitimately as confirmed by the courts of Romania, and he himself is the eldest son of his father, then he is the head of the house and the rightful claimant to the throne. However, in a way Michael's claim is stronger - when Carol Sr abdicated in 1925 it was in favour of his younger son, Michael, establishing him as the heir. Then, when Carol Sr was overthrown in 1940 it was Michael who was put on the throne and crowned. Thus, Michael ruled (in as much as he ruled at all) by conquest, nullifying the actual order of succession. As such, Paul's claim to the Romanian throne becomes rather similar to Charles Stuart's claim to the British throne in the 18th century - yes, he has the better claim in terms of primogeniture, but the ruling party (in as much as there is one) does so by right of conquest, nullifying the better claim.
There is also one more point. The Courts in Portugal, France and Romania has declared that Carol II and Zizi Lambrino's marriage was fully legal and thus their son Carol Mircea was indeed their legitimate son. On this ground Carol Mircea has been authorized to change his surname from Lambrino to Hohenzollern and was able to inherit a share of Carol II's estate (equal to King Michael's share, as both them were his legitimate sons).
However the marriage of Carol II and Zizi Lambrino, although legal, wasn't recognized as dynastically valid by King Ferdinand and Carol Mircea was never recognized as a member of the Romanian Royal Family. Even Carol II never made any attempt to get or make an acknowledgement of Carol Mircea as a meber of the Royal Family, nor Carol Mircea ever made any claim to the Throne or to the status of Romanian Prince.
Only Carol Mircea's eldest son, Paul, has in the last years claimed that his father legally was a Prince of Romania on the grounds that his father was the legitimate eldest son of King Carol II; but although Carol Mircea was indeed the legitimate eldest son of Carol II, he has never been his dynasti heir nor a member of the Romanian Royal Family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 05-16-2013, 01:10 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
But in discussing restorations the dynast heir is not necessarily the heir that gets put into a restored throne. Instead, it's the heir that best fits the needs and desires of the government putting him or her on the throne.

Look at France in the 19th century. In 1814 the British put Louis XVIII on the French throne, then in 1848 the French put Louis-Philippe on the throne, then in 1852 they put Napoleon III on it. Each man had a different claim and was from a different house - Bourbon, Orleans, Bonaparte - and each had a different appeal to the individuals who put that man on the throne.

The same can be said with a hypothetical restoration in Romania. Right now the clear contender would be Michael, as he's the last king, however once he dies there won't be a clear contender and the person who would be restored would be the one that the Romanian government doing the restoring felt is best suited for the job - be it someone descended from Michael, Paul (or another Lambrino), or someone descended from an earlier Romanian king.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 05-16-2013, 02:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
I don't see how Paul can possibly claim any right to the Romanian throne. While his father was legally recognized as a legitimate heir of Carol II, the marriage was non-dynastic by order of the reigning King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 05-16-2013, 02:40 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Paul doesn't have a good claim because his grandparents' marriage was morganatic. However, when you're claiming a defunct throne you don't have to base your claim strictly on the rules of succession used when the throne was in place - you just have to present yourself as the best option to the people behind the restoration.

Paul may not have a dynastic claim, but he is a male-line descendant of Carol II. He also has a son, through which the future of the line can be assured.

Michael does not have a son, so in accordance to the old rules he doesn't have a heir of his body. The individual that he had named his heir, his eldest daughter, is named such in violation of the rules of succession, and doesn't have any children herself. When Michael was asked to designate a heir by the monarchist leaders in Romania it was specifically a male heir, with preference for someone descended from a male-line (and thus not descended from Michael), but an allowance was made for Michael to name his grandson, Nicholas, as his heir, but Michael chose not to.

Purely looking at the established and recognized laws, the heir is Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern, who is the closest male-line relation (the common ancestor being Michael's great-grandfather).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 05-16-2013, 03:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: -, United States
Posts: 1,002
Would any of the Romanian participants of our forum be able to shed some light on the exact meaning of the following article?

It seems that some property was returned to Paul Lambrino illegally.

Curtea de Conturi: Paul Lambrino, mpropriet?rit ILEGAL | Romania Libera
__________________
Sii forte.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 05-16-2013, 08:58 PM
USCtrojan's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Phoenix, United States
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Paul doesn't have a good claim because his grandparents' marriage was morganatic. However, when you're claiming a defunct throne you don't have to base your claim strictly on the rules of succession used when the throne was in place - you just have to present yourself as the best option to the people behind the restoration.

Paul may not have a dynastic claim, but he is a male-line descendant of Carol II. He also has a son, through which the future of the line can be assured.

Michael does not have a son, so in accordance to the old rules he doesn't have a heir of his body. The individual that he had named his heir, his eldest daughter, is named such in violation of the rules of succession, and doesn't have any children herself. When Michael was asked to designate a heir by the monarchist leaders in Romania it was specifically a male heir, with preference for someone descended from a male-line (and thus not descended from Michael), but an allowance was made for Michael to name his grandson, Nicholas, as his heir, but Michael chose not to.

Purely looking at the established and recognized laws, the heir is Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern, who is the closest male-line relation (the common ancestor being Michael's great-grandfather).
Theoretically speaking, didn't he name Nicolae an heir in a way of sorts when he put together the royal decree? Essentially, making Nicolae a prince and styling him a HRH and heir to the throne pretty much does that, just not directly.

I would assume that the hohenzollerns have all bit stepped aside by now and would not jump up and 'claim head of the house or the currently non-existent throne. I would assume that would respect HM being that both thrones at this current time are invalid so to speak. The hohenzollerns have their own throne to worry about and try to restore, so I would assume that would be the case. Hasn't Karl Frederick pretty much said he would not peruse head of the house or the throne upon hM death?

I would think that since the constitution of 1923 is officially invalid, that given the possibility of a restoration down the road -that if Margarita was not given the opportunity to be Queen, that the government would turn to Nicolae being that he is the eldest male grandchild/descendant of HM.

I could be completely insane and wrong, but perhaps Cory or someone else can help me u dear stand some more.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 05-16-2013, 11:50 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by USCtrojan View Post

Theoretically speaking, didn't he name Nicolae an heir in a way of sorts when he put together the royal decree? Essentially, making Nicolae a prince and styling him a HRH and heir to the throne pretty much does that, just not directly.

I would assume that the hohenzollerns have all bit stepped aside by now and would not jump up and 'claim head of the house or the currently non-existent throne. I would assume that would respect HM being that both thrones at this current time are invalid so to speak. The hohenzollerns have their own throne to worry about and try to restore, so I would assume that would be the case. Hasn't Karl Frederick pretty much said he would not peruse head of the house or the throne upon hM death?

I would think that since the constitution of 1923 is officially invalid, that given the possibility of a restoration down the road -that if Margarita was not given the opportunity to be Queen, that the government would turn to Nicolae being that he is the eldest male grandchild/descendant of HM.

I could be completely insane and wrong, but perhaps Cory or someone else can help me u dear stand some more.
He didn't name Nicolas heir. He was given the opportunity to do so - the monarchists wanted him to name a male heir - but he chose instead to name his eldest daughter, Margarita, as his heir. What he has done to include Nicolas is that he's said that in the event that Margareta doesn't have children (she's 64) then the throne will pass to Elena, and through her to Nicolas. In recognition of the fact that he will one day be the monarch (or pretender), Nicholas is the only one of Michael's grandchildren to hold a princely title.

I doubt Karl Frederick will pursue the head of house status after Michael dies, but he still has a technically better claim than anyone else. Romania operated under Salic law and changes to that have not been approved by the government or accepted by Romania's monarchists, who remain unclear on the issue of Margareta being the heir. The sense of it all that I get is had Michael named Nicolas as the heir there would be more support and less uncertainty in regards to the succession.

But that's just my understanding of it based on what I've read on the Internet. Cory would certainly have a better understanding of it than me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 05-17-2013, 05:51 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,820
Nobody thinks in Romania that the descendants of Zizi Lambrino have something to do with the future Restoration of Monarchy. After HM the King, HRH the Crown Princess, HRH Princess Elena and HRH Prince Nicolae will continue the Royal Mission.
Lia Triff's husband has all the rights to inherit a part of his grandfather's goods but it is said he had already sold his rights to some of these goods to a company:

Scandalul pe averea Casei Regale. Prin?ul Paul, la Sinteza Zilei. "Am vndut pentru c? a fost sabotaj peste tot"

Cum ?i-a m?rit Remus Truic? domeniul din inima p?durii Snagov
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 05-18-2013, 08:26 PM
USCtrojan's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Phoenix, United States
Posts: 1,692
President Besescu, Mihai I, and Paul Lambrino

Can someone help me understand the relationships here?

I know that HM and Paul don't have the best relationship. But, I was not aware of anything that would make one assume that there was bad blood if any between president and ex king... Unless I am not aware of serious problems between the two. Don't they simply respect one another?

My main reason for this question is because I learned something new today -president Besescu was a godparent to Paul's son! Are they friends? If so, then this presents an interesting situation does it not?

I know that the president does not have Prince Radu in his favor for some reason....

Can someone just shine some light on all of this?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 05-19-2013, 04:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,820
The person who became president is the godfather of the last descendant of Zizi Lambrino and offended different times HM the King .
The Royal Family does not have any kind of relationship or dialog with the person who became president and with the descendants of Zizi Lambrino.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
king carol ii, queen helen


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
King Alexander I (1893-1920), Aspasia Manos (1896-1972) and dau Alexandra (1921-1993) snowflower Greek Royal History 52 05-03-2014 08:05 PM
Princess Helen of Greece, daughter of Constantine I (1896-1982) geli Greek Royal History 21 01-29-2010 11:56 PM
The Shah's Mother: Taj-Ol-Moluk (1896-1982) Vanesa The Imperial Family of Iran 19 04-28-2009 08:48 AM




Popular Tags
abdication birth brussels carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]